I want to suggest a point to help us get past the stale "hate versus liberty" debate. This point is not directly on either side, but just needs to be a consider

I want to suggest a point to help us get past the stale "hate versus liberty" debate. This point is not directly on either side, but just needs to be a consideration. We want people to have freedom of belief, but if their beliefs lead to widespread social exclusion, that can be a problem. Like, if I have a belief that red-haired people are secretly Lizard Illuminati and must therefore be denied from jobs and public life lest they gain access to levers of power... well, if I am too successful at spreading this belief, it really becomes a problem for red-haired people. I don't know exactly how to negotiate this issue in a liberal society, but I think we need to recognize there is a real tradeoff between important liberal values here: freedom of belief versus inclusion for all in civil society. This isn't a place where you can just invoke one value or the other value and call it a day. Considerations for navigating this tradeoff would likely include 1. How common the belief is, and thus its exclusionary power 2. The factual or rational basis of the belief